• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Basic Shelter/Food/Medical Entitlements Neccessary in First World Governments?

Are Entitlement Neccessary?

  • Yes

    Votes: 17 51.5%

  • No

    Votes: 11 33.3%

  • Sometimes.

    Votes: 4 12.1%

  • Don't know.

    Votes: 1 3.0%
  • Total voters
    33
MistressNomad said:
That's odd. Seems like every country on earth with a higher standard of living, lower crime, better education, and more competitive society than ours disagrees with you.
Click to expand...

Those countries sound like a better place for progressives than the mean, nasty, capitalist US, wouldn't you agree?
 
digsbe said:
I don't think it's necessarily true to say that blue states carry red states. If you look at recent economic growth the red states have largely dominated. Many of the blue states are under a terrible financial crisis and are wanting the federal government to bail them out (California). True, income is usually lower on average in red states, but taxes and the cost of living are usually lower too.
Click to expand...

California is a uniquely mis-managed state. I think everyone agrees on that. ;) But here's a question: would you rather live in Arizona or Minnesota? Having just moved from Arizona to Minnesota, I can tell you there are a few things I notice immediately, back on the job hunt and having a lapse in insurance.

1. The economy here is way better. While it may be true that living is cheaper in AZ, it's only by a bit, and there are no jobs, and the ones there are pay less money, and the cost of living is not significantly cheaper to bridge the gap. Minnesota has more jobs, that pay better, sufficiently to bridge the gap in higher cost of living which really isn't that much higher. In fact, I can get a studio in Minneapolis for less than I was paying in AZ.

2. There are fewer resources in AZ. ACCESS (a low-income health option) is basically inaccessible unless you work for min wage part-time (if you're unemployed you don't qualify, and if you make $1300-ish a year you don't qualify), which you can't live on anyway. And ACCESS has recently been cut for single adults, which I am. Even if you qualify, it's about 16 years of paperwork and wait time. I just went to the clinic for free today in Minneapolis. Took me 5 minutes to register.

3. Who has lower crime? That's really all I need to say.

4. Who has a better education system? Again, no more is needed.

5. ...But related to education, I can go to the community college in Minneapolis for free, and I can't in AZ. Even if I was a resident.


All of these things would be true when comparing almost any red and blue state. There are acceptions. But generally, if you live in a blue state you're better off.
 
Last edited:
X Factor said:
Those countries sound like a better place for progressives than the mean, nasty, capitalist US, wouldn't you agree?
Click to expand...

Yup. I lived in a couple of them. And they still have a capitalistic economy. It's just that their people aren't ok with seeing others suffer if they don't need to.

Call me crazy, but I want that sort of quality of life for the citizens of my own country, too.
 
MistressNomad said:
California is a uniquely mis-managed state. I think everyone agrees on that. ;) But here's a question: would you rather live in Arizona or Minnesota? Having just moved from Arizona to Minnesota, I can tell you there are a few things I notice immediately, back on the job hunt and having a lapse in insurance.

1. The economy here is way better. While it may be true that living is cheaper in AZ, it's only by a bit, and there are no jobs, and the ones there are pay less money, and the cost of living is not significantly cheaper to bridge the gap. Minnesota has more jobs, that pay better, sufficiently to bridge the gap in higher cost of living which really isn't that much higher. In fact, I can get a studio in Minneapolis for less than I was paying in AZ.

2. There are fewer resources in AZ. ACCESS (a low-income health option) is basically inaccessible unless you work for min wage part-time (if you're unemployed you don't qualify, and if you make $1300-ish a year you don't qualify), which you can't live on anyway. And ACCESS has recently been cut for single adults, which I am. Even if you qualify, it's about 16 years of paperwork and wait time. I just went to the clinic for free today in Minneapolis. Took me 5 minutes to register.

3. Who has lower crime? That's really all I need to say.

4. Who has a better education system? Again, no more is needed.

5. ...But related to education, I can go to the community college in Minneapolis for free, and I can't in AZ. Even if I was a resident.


All of these things would be true when comparing almost any red and blue state. There are acceptions. But generally, if you live in a blue state you're better off.
Click to expand...

I do see a correlation. I have a similar story only opposite. I was born in the blue state of Maryland and moved to Tennessee. In Maryland the average household income was higher, but so were the taxes. The cost of living and real estate in Maryland was very expensive. The middle class tended to live in smaller homes (usually townhouses).

In Tennessee people tend to make less money. However, taxes are lower and housing is more affordable. The middle class tend to live in larger houses than in Maryland and the cost of living is cheaper.

I think that there are benefits to both red and blue states, but I don't necessarily think that blue states carry the red states.

One thing I loved about Maryland and most blue states is the public transportation and the education. Maryland has an excellent public transit system and I really miss having one here in Nashville. It was also easier to go to college in Maryland and the government provided more support for post-high school education.

Some benefits of red states (Tennessee) is that there are lower taxes. We have no income tax in my state (to compensate though we do have one of the highest sales tax rates in the country). Housing is more affordable. However, education is lacking and the state doesn't do much to help post-high school students. It wasn't until very recently that they provided some help to college students that was funded by a newly created state lottery.

I think each state with their political affiliations has their benefits and negatives. But I don't think that one side carries the other. Personally though, I would prefer to live in a blue(ish) state.
 
MistressNomad said:
It's not that simple. What I would have died from was a large cyst that required surgery. Pretty minor surgery, and actually not a big deal... if you have medical care. If I didn't, I would have been dead in a month.

In other words, I never would have made it to adulthood without comprehensive medical care. And I'm a healthy person.

The same is true of anyone who's ever have appendicitis, asthma, severe allergies, or even a cavity. All of these are common, and can result in death if left untreated.
Click to expand...

And if you go to the ER with one of these ailments, they will treat you and save your life whether you have insurance or not.
 
Goshin said:
And if you go to the ER with one of these ailments, they will treat you and save your life whether you have insurance or not.
Click to expand...

...And then plunge me into a few thousand dollars of debt for having the audacity to get sick? Lovely.
 
While I have no problem with a system whereby the needy are temporarily helped when they fall and put back on the road to self-sufficiency, it should be a very short-term solution and those who are capable but refuse to work should be forced out of the system to their own self-chosen end. Helping the needy is one thing. Supporting them for the rest of their lives is another.
 
MistressNomad said:
It's not that simple. What I would have died from was a large cyst that required surgery. Pretty minor surgery, and actually not a big deal... if you have medical care. If I didn't, I would have been dead in a month.

In other words, I never would have made it to adulthood without comprehensive medical care. And I'm a healthy person.

The same is true of anyone who's ever have appendicitis, asthma, severe allergies, or even a cavity. All of these are common, and can result in death if left untreated.
Click to expand...

Regardless of your ability to pay, public (not private) hospitals are REQUIRED BY LAW to treat you. Had you gone to an ER you would likely have been examined, treated, and given an exceptionally discounted bill for services (in many cases if you can pay cash you pay the equivalent of a co-pay).
 
X Factor said:
Those countries sound like a better place for progressives than the mean, nasty, capitalist US, wouldn't you agree?
Click to expand...

Yes. If you've done your homework. And, it citizenship weren't such an issue, then many of use be over there working, living under a more mature, hardship tested, and advanced system. America got it's gains not primarily from it's constitutional attitude, but instead from geographical positioning and political events occurring elsewhere. If were weren't an ocean, oil under our soil, and Europe killing each other, meeting a technologically less advanced native culture, things would have fared much different. I believe the squandering of the advances and outstanding head start is proof it's not our attitude that made what we are today, we have to fix our erroneous attitude, before we loose it all.
 
VanceMack said:
Regardless of your ability to pay, public (not private) hospitals are REQUIRED BY LAW to treat you. Had you gone to an ER you would likely have been examined, treated, and given an exceptionally discounted bill for services (in many cases if you can pay cash you pay the equivalent of a co-pay).
Click to expand...

What about if you require follow-up? Also, why should I have to wait to get treatment until it's a desperate situation? The amount of collateral damage that can cause can result in health problems for the rest of your life when earlier non-emergency treatment would have prevented it.

With the number of people in this country who die every year from lack of treatment, or wind up in hundreds of thousands of dollars of medical debt, it's really not that simple.
 
empireofreason said:
Before "the system" arrived that makes us First World, we could always chop down a few trees and make a house. We could plant some corn and potatoes and feed the chickens. Take a few things into town and trade. This easily implemented self-responsibility cannot be done today. We are at the mercy of a system and a dollar bill. If there is no job available, we cannot get this dollar bill. It's not like you can just ignore the system, go chop some trees down or start planting food again like we used to.

I say yes. Without entitlements, we are not exploiting our full potentiality as a nation.

Can we rely upon business to create all the jobs? I don't think so, because business interests are too narrow.

Is it up to the individual to create their own business? No. Nature created many more followers than leaders. Many people just weren't made to create business and need to be just brought aboard to do things.

This leaves the government with the responsibility to bridge the gap.

What if the jobs don't exist? Are the people without jobs entitled to housing, food and health care?

If you don't keep a person sheltered, fed and with basic health care, you cannot expect them to be prepared for work.

I think the government has a responsibility to shelter, feed and provide health care for it's citizens with one caveat, the person getting the entitlement except the work from the government if they do not find work on their own.

The work should not exceed the value of the entitlement relative to the market worth. If it shown the person does not cooperate (ruling out mental illness) a bit of structure that doesn't penalize the tax payer is in order: a barb wire, rubber bullet, work camp would be a short-term alternative until cooperation is met. Presently, the government does not do this, I'd like to see this done.

What do you think? Are basic entitlements necessary? if yes, what conditions would you apply to make those entitlement fair? If not, how can you justify allowing poverty and crime that will ensue?
Click to expand...

This isn't entirely true. My grandparents grew most of their food, the only thing they had to buy was milk and meat. Which, they could get if it ever came down to it.
 
Cephus said:
While I have no problem with a system whereby the needy are temporarily helped when they fall and put back on the road to self-sufficiency, it should be a very short-term solution and those who are capable but refuse to work should be forced out of the system to their own self-chosen end. Helping the needy is one thing. Supporting them for the rest of their lives is another.
Click to expand...

This is about entitlements. Of course of people who don't want to work and don't ask for an entitlement force themselves out the of system. This is not a problem, It's rather those who seek entitlements that are the concern. The government would ask them to work for those entitlements.

As far as support for their rest of their lives, as far as I know no has that argument here, unless they are elderly. Everyone's seems to think it's okay to have those who receive entitlements do some work, including the disabled where they can help.

The rich are lucky the oil wells don't have the ability to talk, because they've taken credit for most of the work done in our world. Just because you take oil out the ground doesn't mean you really own what work it does. Try to push your 4000lb auto to work next week. That energy should be shared by all those in your country, not hoarded by luxurious spending during economic bad times, leaving fellow citizens in squalor. It's like one man taking credit for a concrete and steel tower built down town or an entire apartment complex. One man could never do this work, but in our world we can pretend he can take ownership implying he did. If entitlements cut in on the rich or even moderately wealthy, who cares. They take far too much credit for what they say they have earned.
 
Last edited:
DashingAmerican said:
This isn't entirely true. My grandparents grew most of their food, the only thing they had to buy was milk and meat. Which, they could get if it ever came down to it.
Click to expand...

The analogy was meant to point out that human responsiblity and survival had a more direct relationship when it was with the land vs a first world system. A perfect anthropological example was never my intent.
 
MistressNomad said:
What about if you require follow-up? Also, why should I have to wait to get treatment until it's a desperate situation? The amount of collateral damage that can cause can result in health problems for the rest of your life when earlier non-emergency treatment would have prevented it.

With the number of people in this country who die every year from lack of treatment, or wind up in hundreds of thousands of dollars of medical debt, it's really not that simple.
Click to expand...

If you require follow up you go back to the ER...just like hundreds of thousands of people do every year. It IS that simple. Additionally, every county that I know of has a contract medicare/medficaid service provider and an unfinded clinic. You miught be amazed what is already out there for you. There us a website maintained by the United Way (and Im pretty sure it covers every state)...go to 2-1-1 Call Center Search and see if there arent services in your local area.
 
VanceMack said:
If you require follow up you go back to the ER...just like hundreds of thousands of people do every year. It IS that simple. Additionally, every county that I know of has a contract medicare/medficaid service provider and an unfinded clinic. You miught be amazed what is already out there for you. There us a website maintained by the United Way (and Im pretty sure it covers every state)...go to 2-1-1 Call Center Search and see if there arent services in your local area.
Click to expand...

And what does treating the medical system this way actually do? Skyrockets the cost of care, because the hospitals wind up eating a lot of the bills when they have no choice. So everyone else's cost of care skyrockets too, even when they're trying to pay for it fair and square.

It's unsustainable, economically damaging, and unfair.

There are resources... in some places. In others, there used to be but they've been cut lately. It's just luck of the draw depending on where you live.
 
Last edited:
MistressNomad said:
And what does treating the medical system this way actually do? Skyrockets the cost of care, because the hospitals wind up eating a lot of the bills when they have no choice. So everyone else's cost of care skyrockets too, even when they're trying to pay for it fair and square.

It's unsustainable, economically damaging, and unfair.

There are resources... in some places. In others, there used to be but they've been cut lately. It's just luck of the draw depending on where you live.
Click to expand...

Unfair...Good GOD how I despise that word...

SO...and Im not trying to be argumentative here...but let me get this straight...you dont like that there ISNT affordable healthcare...then when I demonstrate that there is you dont like THAT either? BTW...I downloaded the 211 resource pages for Minnesota. Amazing number of freesources there...

We do not live in a socialist system. The socialism people crave is only made POSSIBLE by hard working productive CAPITALISTS. That being said...we still make available resources for those that cant (and FAR too often WILL NOT) provide for themselves. Its abused like you wouldnt believe...and you think it will be MORE cost effective if they create a federal universal version of it?
 
VanceMack said:
Unfair...Good GOD how I despise that word...

SO...and Im not trying to be argumentative here...but let me get this straight...you dont like that there ISNT affordable healthcare...then when I demonstrate that there is you dont like THAT either? BTW...I downloaded the 211 resource pages for Minnesota. Amazing number of freesources there...

We do not live in a socialist system. The socialism people crave is only made POSSIBLE by hard working productive CAPITALISTS. That being said...we still make available resources for those that cant (and FAR too often WILL NOT) provide for themselves. Its abused like you wouldnt believe...and you think it will be MORE cost effective if they create a federal universal version of it?
Click to expand...

The thing is, it's not affordable. It is grossly and unsustainably expensive for society. You should like what I'm saying - I'm saying it's unfair to the people who are actually paying for their insurance.

Yes, I said earlier Minnesota has particularly good resources. But some states don't have very many resources at all, let alone comprehensive ones.

Whether or not you get help shouldn't depend on the luck of the draw of where you live.

We are quite socialist, and we have been for ages. Public education, welfare, limited public health, government paid police, fire brigades, and postal services, government paid infrastructure, etc etc etc.

Please. We don't live in a pure capitalist country and we never have. Because doing so has never been a recipe for a balanced country.

And yes, I do think it will be more balanced if we have a well-planned public health care system. Why? Because every country that does spends proportionally WAY less on healthcare than we do.

We have the worst care in the developed world, and the most expensive care simultaneously. This broken system is the reason why.
 
Last edited:
empireofreason said:
So if perfectly mentally and physically healthy person has the willpower to work, but the energy resources have been hoarded a greedily manner, is this too a fault of nature?
Click to expand...

"Energy" resources?
I don't follow.

But yes a person of sound mind and body should work for their own needs.
 
Of course entitlements are necessary that's just common sense, the problem is their abuse and endless/open door policies.
 
MistressNomad said:
The thing is, it's not affordable. It is grossly and unsustainably expensive for society. You should like what I'm saying - I'm saying it's unfair to the people who are actually paying for their insurance.

Yes, I said earlier Minnesota has particularly good resources. But some states don't have very many resources at all, let alone comprehensive ones.

Whether or not you get help shouldn't depend on the luck of the draw of where you live.

We are quite socialist, and we have been for ages. Public education, welfare, limited public health, government paid police, fire brigades, and postal services, government paid infrastructure, etc etc etc.

Please. We don't live in a pure capitalist country and we never have. Because doing so has never been a recipe for a balanced country.

And yes, I do think it will be more balanced if we have a well-planned public health care system. Why? Because every country that does spends proportionally WAY less on healthcare than we do.

We have the worst care in the developed world, and the most expensive care simultaneously. This broken system is the reason why.
Click to expand...

We engage in socialist policies out of political expediency and for my money it has caused far more damage than good. 'The system' doesnt need more government (taxpayer) dollars it needs less freeloaders...less people unwilloing to provide for themselves. And we have created a system that enables them to be dependent. The socialism that was created is meant to be in place for those that NEED the help. Unfortunately we have so many leeches and drains on the system that we dont have enough to provide for the ones that truly need it.

Our medical system is fine...beyond fine. There is a reason why people travel from around the world to get treated here. Is it expensive? Yep. Can it be modified? You bet. But more government healthcare will not mean better services and it damn sure wont mean more affordable services.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
I don't see how requiring a person to pay for luxuries is a ok, but to pay for something more important to them is wrong.

We have things incredibly backwards.
Click to expand...

Living a luxury? Do I have the right to shoot you in the face, then?
 
VanceMack said:
We engage in socialist policies out of political expediency and for my money it has caused far more damage than good. 'The system' doesnt need more government (taxpayer) dollars it needs less freeloaders...less people unwilloing to provide for themselves. And we have created a system that enables them to be dependent. The socialism that was created is meant to be in place for those that NEED the help. Unfortunately we have so many leeches and drains on the system that we dont have enough to provide for the ones that truly need it.

Our medical system is fine...beyond fine. There is a reason why people travel from around the world to get treated here. Is it expensive? Yep. Can it be modified? You bet. But more government healthcare will not mean better services and it damn sure wont mean more affordable services.
Click to expand...

History proves you wrong. Pure capitalism never works. You wind up with a giant poor caste and not much else. Monopolies can and do take over - the market doesn't control them. Societies with a socialist aspect just do better. Better education, longer lives, higher standard of living, more competitive, lower crime, etc. And there's a sweet spot of socialist qualities that seem to work best. We're shy of it. Some countries overdo it.

We have the worst care, most people dying of lack of access to care, and the most expensive care in the developed world and you think it's fine? We also have the shortest life expectancy,

Yeah, RICH people fly in. Rich people are all you care about, aren't they? Yes, enough money will buy you some medical attention. But if you don't have money, you get the bottom of the barrel.
 
Last edited:
MistressNomad said:
Living a luxury? Do I have the right to shoot you in the face, then?
Click to expand...

Of course not, but when people misplace luxuries for needs, that is assumed to be right.
When someone has to pay for one of the most important things to them, it's wrong?

How much is your life worth to you? and how much are you willing to pay for it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom